Showing posts with label venture capital. Show all posts
Showing posts with label venture capital. Show all posts

How a Biomed Tech Company Raised $35.7 Million

When Charu Ramanathan founded CardioInsight in 2005, she knew she had a technology on her hands with the potential to help save people's lives. It provided a minimally invasive way to create a 3D map of the heart's electrical activity, one that could help in the diagnosis and treatment of heart disease. But with any technology in the biomedical space, bringing it to market would require a long and painstaking process, one involving significant research, clinical testing, regulatory approval, and most of all – funding.
The field of biomedical technology is a risky one for investors to enter, involving intensive R&D, thorough clinical testing, complicated regulatory approval and a long lag-time before the product is ready to go to market. "The regulatory requirements are significant," says Kevin Mendelsohn, vice president of finance and corporate development at CardioInsight. "That regulatory hurdle requires much more capital and time than say a software company or a healthcare IT company. That’s where a lot of the money goes."
Ramanathan and her founding partner were researchers, not business people, but over the course of six years, they still managed to raise $35.7 million from government funding, institutional supporters, venture capitalists, industry supporters and angel investors -- all before bringing the product to market in Europe in 2012 with a limited launch. Getting this funding meant a lot of planning and forward thinking on the part of Ramanathan and everyone involved. Here are five key factors to keep in mind when raising funding in the field of biomedical technology.
It's not enough to show your technology works. It has to be a game-changer. In CardioInsight's case, the company offered a new kind of technology that was far less invasive than what was currently available. More than any other field, biomedical technology requires that kind of innovation since want unique opportunities that both minimize risk and maximize return. "Products that have marginal differences from solutions in the marketplace have trouble getting financing," says Mark Low, managing director of the Global Cardiovascular Technology Center, which helps provide funding and resources to early-stage cardiovascular technologies.
Tap into your region’s resources. The company’s technology was developed at Case Western Reserve University and CardioInsight’s first location was in the University’s hospital's health system, helping to significantly reduce costs. "That gave them a headquarters that was much more cost effective than if they were to go out and try to sign a lease at commercial building," says Joseph Jankowski, chief innovation officer at Case Western.
Additionally, CardioInsight first raised $2 million from regional institutions including $250,000 from Case Western's technology transfer program, matched both by the early-stage venture development organization Jumpstart and the venture capital fund Draper Triangle Ventures. Tapping into the university and region's resources gave CardioInsight the initial validation necessary to attract a VC firm. 
Figure out how to show the greatest value early on.CardioInsight had clear milestones to meet in order to show investors down the line that the technology had the brainpower and leadership behind it to succeed. "With all venture-backed companies the greatest challenge remains how to get the most value," says Mendelsohn. In the case of CardioInsight, that meant proving the technology worked in the clinical setting, being able to generate reproducible data, showing it could be applied to various clinical applications that addressed an unmet need, and proving that it could generate a significant financial benefit.
Know your exit strategy. If a company is still relying on investment capital after seven years and more than $30 million of VC funding, it must have a plan for coming to market, says Jankowski. "That’s another fear for investors," he says. "How much money and time do you need to get to an exit so that I can get my money back?" For CardioInsight, Ramanathan says the technology will go to market in the U.S. in the next 18 months, in 2015, bringing the technology's time to market in the U.S. to less than ten years. Most investors are looking for a return in no more than eight to ten years. "If you say to a venture fund, 'I could get you ten times your money but it's going to take 20 years,' they are going to pass," says Jankowski.
Be prepared to kiss a lot of frogs. The first $2 million that CardioInsight raised primarily from state funding helped the company raise the next $32 million. When you're dealing with such significant amounts of capital, investors will be particularly cautious and picky when it comes to making decisions. "One VC's frog is another VCs prince," says Paul Cohn, managing director for Fort Washington Capital Partners, which manages a fund responsible for providing capital to CardioInsight. "You've got to talk to a number of venture capital funds to find the one that’s a right fit."
Often that takes a level of confidence and persistence unmatched in most other industries. It means believing wholeheartedly in your technology, because others often won't. "I felt I truly should rely on myself," says Ramanathan. "At the end of the day, it's the passion that drives the business forward."
Correction: An earlier version of this article incorrectly stated the name of firm Fort Washington Capital Partners.
source : link

Things to Look for in a Venture Capitalist

What really separates venture capitalists from the rest of us?
I’ve been dealing with VCs for a long time, including my time as one of them. I’ve lost count of the number of meetings I’ve had and the thousands of emails (and dollars) I’ve exchanged with them over the years.
Last week someone asked me what I think about VCs. She wanted to know if I thought they were really smart, just lucky or absolutely clueless. Here’s what I told her:
They know what they know, and not much else. Most of the VCs I’ve worked with would fail an undergraduate exam on emerging technologies, regardless of how amazingly articulate and affable they might be. I remember VCs I worked with in the late 1990s that had absolutely no clue about how the internet actually worked or any insight at all about the technology that powered the web, or the business models that the web enabled. Since most VCs come from banking, finance, mergers, acquisitions and related industries, they really don’t understand much about retail, insurance, manufacturing or aerospace, among other industries.
So what do they know? Deal terms, valuation, investor rights. All that stuff. They’re really good at modifying deal terms. They’re good at employment agreements. They understand cap tables even when they’re drunk, and can dissect -- and challenge -- revenue projections in their sleep.
It's not who you know. It's who they know. Most of the success that VCs enjoy is due to their relationships. Who they invest with, the entrepreneurs they back and the lawyers and investment bankers they hire explain much more about their success than their technical knowledge, experience or natural luck. If you look at the most successful VCs, you will almost always see repeat performers in their portfolios. They go to the same wells over and over again. Most of their success is the result of who they know, not what they know or do.
A VC always wins. When VCs fail, they still get huge salaries and management fees, fly private jets and take elaborate vacations disguised as deal flow expeditions. When their investments are successful, they get huge salaries and management fees, fly private jets, take elaborate vacations disguised as deal flow expeditions and get “carried interest,” a percent of the profits from their investments. The traditional 80/20 split (after huge salaries and fees, of course) makes a lot of “lucky” VCs very, very rich.
VCs get paid really well regardless of how well they perform (with other people’s money). Many of them -- and maybe even you -- will say that if a fund fails to return meaningful returns to its investors, VCs will have a hard time raising another fund. But the facts suggest otherwise. Actually, this all sounds pretty damn smart to me. In fact, the VC business model is absolutely brilliant -- for VCs.
If you’re an entrepreneur looking for an investment, or an investor looking to make some money, what should you look for in a VCs? Here are five rank-ordered areas to assess:
1. Relationships. Who does the VC know, invest, work, travel and win with? Look for relationship pedigrees that include major law firms, successful entrepreneurial testimonials and happy institutional investors.
2. Performance. While VCs win whether they succeed or fail, you need to know what the empirical record actually shows, not lore or hearsay, but actual results, like the internal rate of return of each and every fund they’ve raised and the carried interest that investors actually received. Take no prisoners here: this is the most important due diligence you will ever do.
3. Advocacy. Assess the firm’s orientation -- is it an entrepreneur-friendly firm or a firm that’s focused primarily on its investors? There are strengths and weaknesses with each bias, but remember that entrepreneur-friendly firms have better deal flow than firms that have investor biases.
4. Knowledge. While many VCs are not rocket scientists, they should also know enough about themselves to know what they don’t know. There is no more deadly combination than arrogance and stupidity -- if you see this combination, run for the hills.
5. Professional integrity. It’s important to calibrate the integrity and ethics that define your VC firm. If you’re wondering why “professional integrity” is last on my rank-ordered list, it’s not that professional integrity isn’t important, it’s just that the other four areas are more important. This will tell you everything you really need to know about VCs.
Good “luck.”

source : link